In article <[log in to unmask]>, Jeanette/Ken Nutsford <[log in to unmask]> says: > >There have been a number of postings on the HP3000-L concerning performance >issues in moving from MPE/iX 4.0 to MPE/iX 5.0 with the latest one today from >[log in to unmask] > >This issue was raised at the MPE & Database Roundtable at IPROF'96 and Jim >Sartain replied for HP indicating that they would investigate. The following >message was sent to Jim Sartain to initiate further action. > >---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > >From: Ken Nutsford, 100026,663 >TO: JIM R SARTAIN, 72163,441 >DATE: 3/4/96 12:51 PM > >RE: Resourcing issues with MPE/iX 5.x > > >Hello Jim. > >The theme of my questions at the MPE & IMAGE Roundtable on moving from MPE/iX >4.0 to 5.x was maintaining throughput for our COBOL compiles. Our test compile >which we run in stand alone mode on different HP3000 machines with different >configurations shows that moving to MPE/iX 5.x is not just a software upgrade >but also a hardware upgrade which includes additional memory and possibly >additional disk capacity. The unknown factor is the amount of additional memory >necessary to maintain throughput at current MPE/iX levels. > >Our timings to date are as follows. > >Computer Memory O/S Compile Time >-------------- ----------- ----- -------------------- >HP3000/920 24MB MPE/iX 4.0 22 minutes >HP3000/922 56MB MPE/iX 4.0 7 minutes >HP3000/922 40MB MPE/iX 5.0 21 minutes >HP3000/917 32MB MPE/iX 4.0 3 minutes >HP3000/917 32MB MPE/iX 5.5 8 minutes > >What we are looking for is information on the additional memory we would need to >add to the different machines to maintain the compile times under 5.x as we now >have with 4.0, so that we can access the cost of maintaining the status quo with >our development environment. For example, will the memory on the 917 need to be >doubled, trebled or even quadrupled? > >At the Roudtable session you indicated HP would be willing to look at this issue >with us. I know it is of concern to others who are still on MPE/iX 4.0 and do >not want MPE/iX 5.x to impact their performance. > >Thanks for your support and willingness to investigate this issue for the MPE/iX >community. > >Ken Nutsford <[log in to unmask]> Although I don't still have the numbers, I experienced a similar loss of speed with compiles and other similar memory intensive programs on my '917/LX/32MB machine (even after the "low-memory patch). My solution was to DOUBLE the memory to 64MB, which is fairly cheap and certainly proved to be effective. I don't have COBOL, so I can't say for sure what it would take to make it "fly" again, but I would guess you would see a big improvement with 64MB. Also I noticed that some of the 5.0 compilers use more CPU than the 4.0 versions, so additional memory won't get that back. Good Luck ! Winston K.